A320 family landing technique
 

Hello everyone,

This is a topic that has already been discussed in other threads, but here’s a new case. In short, I’m a cadet who has just started flying (about 300 type hours), flying the A320 family (A319/A320CEO & NEO/A321CEO). Interestingly, my first few flights up to about a month and a half went well, but suddenly, after a slightly tougher one (or so I think), I started losing confidence and developed a terrible tendency to float. They had to extend my LIFUS phase hours until I finally got it (about 20 days ago). On the flights I’ve had since then, I haven’t been free of floating, and it’s happened to me again on several occasions. To date, I’ve been able to handle the situation well when it happens, but I know it’s a dangerous situation. The company promotes the technique outlined in the FCOM and FCTM manuals. Basically, it comes down to this: under standard conditions and approaches (ILS-3º), maintain about 700 ft/min until reaching about 30 ft RA, at which point we should begin the flare and cut back on thrust. It is key to pass 50ft at ~700ft/min, when the THS freezes (not talking about A321NEO or XLR). In principle, this is the theory, and it’s what I try to do, but in practice, I see things that differ from it. I’ll discuss them below, and I’d like to hear your opinion.

• As for the altitude at which to initiate the flare, many pilots avoid waiting until 30 feet to start the flare and instead perform kind of two separate flares. At around 50 feet, they begin to reduce their rate of descent in a certain way and then complete the flare later on. I understand that this somehow alters the glide path and, ultimately, the touchdown point. In any case, in my limited experience, it is true that on the occasions when I accidentally dropped that 700 ft/min rate to around 500 ft/min at about 50 ft, I felt the plane was much more under control before touchdown and I felt much more comfortable.
• As for the flare itself, the manual states that you should perform a gentle and progressive flare, so I assume you should hold the sidestick in that position until the touchdown (generally speaking, every situation is different). However, when I look at real-life situations and watch YouTube videos of actual approaches, I see many pilots making small touches on the sidestick during the flare without holding a specific position... and they land perfectly. In fact, there are many cases where it seems like there are excessive inputs in terms of quantity, which is exactly what I’ve been told not to do. How is this possible?
• The last point concerns when to cut the thrust. I know the “20 ft” callout is a reminder, and that the manual says it should be done rapidly and “when best adapted.” My tendency is to do it at around 30 feet as I also start the flare. But I’ve heard all kinds of opinions on this. Some say 30 feet is too early, that I might lose speed and stall, resulting in a hard landing; others say I should wait until 20 feet and cut the thrust just before touching down to make the landing smoother. I’ve also heard variations here depending on the type of aircraft. For example, I’ve been told not to even think about cutting back at 30 ft with a heavy A321. It’s true that in the latter case, I’ve occasionally waited to cut back a little later after starting the flare around 30 ft, but it’s also true that the A321 is the one that’s given me the most trouble. The funny thing about all this is that I think I can understand why they tell me to maintain thrust for longer, since when I flew the Warrior or the DA42, if I had a high rate of descent during the flare or anticipated a slightly harder landing, I’d give it a little throttle to slow the rate. But of course, in that case, the engine gave me power instantly, and we were dealing with different inertias. This is an A32X, much heavier, with Autothrust and other inertias that I haven’t mastered yet...

Maybe I’m overthinking this and I shouldn’t, but it worries me that some people use a different technique and still land successfully. Obviously, what I want is to land successfully too, and not find myself in a situation like the one I faced during the LIFUS phase extension, where I had a terrible time. I hope I don't end up losing this job after all the hard work I've put in... I find this situation strange, since I’ve never encountered similar problems in the other planes I’ve flown (non-jets like the Cessna 172, Piper Warrior, or DA42). Thank you all very much.

IMHO, the "double flare" technique will scare the people you fly with and is a sticking plaster to a bigger problem. I would also caution against the technique that you will see on the line at some point of just wallowing in ground effect and closing the thrust levers at touchdown.

The Airbus FCTM teaches the best way. Trust it. And be happy with a plop into the touchdown zone on the centre line with nothing broken or out of limits.

Welcome to understanding the flare.

At the outset, it happens to everyone. Even senior “BUS” drivers will occasionally float.

With regard to flaring and avoiding a float, I don’t think there is a single rule or principle anyone can give. The environment is dynamic, and it is this very nature that teaches us to fly better.

Anyway, I’ll try my best to share my experience:
1. Wind awareness from early on
When cleared for landing, or once you initiate the descent on the approach, make the ND wind part of your scan. Cross-check and verify it with tower-reported winds.

This helps you anticipate how the wind will affect your path and, in turn, your ground speed.

Rule of thumb: Rate of Descent on a 3° glide ≈ GS × 5
2. Stabilised approach and scan discipline
Follow the glidepath until DA (on an ILS approach). Thereafter, increase your scan rate (inside–outside).

Point the aircraft where you want to touch down. Remember:

• Normal Law / Fly-by-wire: minimal inputs, small corrections

Continuously assess the wind on the ND and ask yourself:

• Am I expecting crosswind or quartering wind? From which side?
• Am I getting stronger headwinds than reported?
  • If yes, consider reducing thrust slightly later than usual
• Am I getting stronger tailwinds?
  • If yes, consider flaring slightly earlier and retarding thrust earlier

Note (especially A321neo):
Autothrust is less responsive below ~150 ft AGL. Retarding thrust too early when speed trend is below VAPP can result in a firmer landing.
3. The most important bit – understanding the flare

(a) In real-world conditions, ROD cannot be a fixed 700 ft/min due to wind and gusts.

(b) Do not blindly chase the glidepath. Anticipate using wind information and GS-based ROD.

(c) As you get closer to the ground, understand flare law:

• A320 flare law activates at 50 ft RA
• A321neo transitions around 100 ft RA (with different flare characteristics)

The basic idea: the THS (Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer) “freezes.”

For example:

• If at 50 ft RA you are holding a pitch corresponding to 500 ft/min ROD, the THS is trimmed for that condition
• If you then increase to 700 ft/min, the THS is still trimmed for the earlier pitch

By ~30 ft RA, when you initiate the flare:

• The flare input may become excessive, leading to a float (especially if thrust reduction is late)
• Conversely, if trimmed for a higher ROD earlier, flare input may be insufficient → firmer landing

This is particularly noticeable on the A321.
4. Bottom line

• Maintain a correct glidepath until DA
• After DA, increase scan rate (inside–outside)
• Continuously assess wind and its effect
• Adjust ROD based on GS and conditions
• Before ~100 ft RA, ensure pitch/ROD is where you want it (e.g., ~700 ft/min if appropriate)
• Do not chase PAPI or glidepath below this point
• If slightly high ROD, correct ROD and don’t hesitate to initiate flare slightly lower than usual to avoid float
• MOST IMPORTANT LAND ON THE CENTERLINE , FLOAT OR NO FLOAT

I think all that might cause the OP more anxiety and nervousness.
I suspect the OP is trying to land a medium sized jet as if it was a C172, but the jet needs to be FLOWN onto the runway.

The RadAlt readout is useful, but don't dwell on it too much when you really want to be looking outside, and doing things by feel and look.

I generally found the suggested "action" height of 30' (A320/321) to be slightly too conservative, and I would start at more like 20'. I arrest the descent rate - by looking outside - and then push slightly forward again, timing the thrust lever movement to occur just before the mains touch, (which comes with practice).

The OP might be arresting the descent and then waiting for the aircraft to sink onto the runway, like a C172, which is probably why you are floating. Jets need to be FLOWN onto the runway. Don't wait for a sink, fly it on, (but not at 700'/min, obviously !!).

= At about 20' arrest rate of descent - looking outside. Having done so, push slightly forward and coordinate thrust lever movement to idle.

The OP is newish. I’d be careful suggesting push forward, unless we want to review his/her technique on AvHerald or Accident threads here on the forum

No no no. Push forward SLIGHTLY, I specifically said.

Not back to 700'/min, just SLIGHTLY.

There should be no pushing forward at all. Releasing back pressure on the stick, perhaps.

Ah, I see where the confusion is arising. I said "push", but I did not mean to imply an armful of nose down; just a slight nose-down correction - the barest of nudges.

Given that the Airbus FBW progressively forces you to hold back on the stick - nose up command - as you enter the flare; yes, technically you would release a tiny amount of back pressure, rather than actually push.

Approaching 20', arrest the rate of descent to leave a very small rate of descent to fly onto the runway. If you arrest the descent completely, and would otherwise float along at 5', (what the OP is probably doing), move the stick SLIGHTLY forwards to allow a small rate of descent until gently contacting the runway.


I could show you in the aircraft, not so easy to explain exactly what I mean in words.

Some good advice so far.

What Uplinker means is releasing back pressure on the stick, which means you still hold back the stick, but a bit less than when you initially flared the aircraft. But of course you always have to land nose up, you can never land on your nose wheel first.

Now, back to some basics which are important to make sense of good A320 landings.

In general, on A320fam, you need to cut thrust when starting the flare (that is also what the FCOM says). Otherwise ATHR will increase thrust to compensate for the speed drop when lifting the nose. That is why the "RETARD" callout reminds you to cut thrust if you haven't already.

In my company, we often fly also with ATHR off, and it is the same landing technique in general: cut thrust when starting the flare. Now some situations (e.g. sudden wind drop, hot air over hot asphalt, etc.) will need to keep thrust longer, or even will need an increase in thrust, but that comes down to experience, and good visual reading of the situation.

I will explain what I mean by good visual reading of the situation. But before I come to that another thing needed to understand: Flare Mode (on CEO).

Flare mode adapts (on CEO) the automatic trim down during flare depending on the pitch in 50ft!

The higher the pitch in 50ft, the faster the trim down from 30ft onwards. That means: if you want a repetitive behaviour of the aircraft during flare, you need a repetitive pitch in 50ft!

Now how to get this repetitive pitch in 50ft! Aim point flying!

Some previous contributers already mentioned: below Cat 1 minimum, do not chase the GS, but fly the aircraft visually towards your intended point of touchdown, the so called aim point (usually on the big touchdown markers next to the PAPIs). So under 200ft you basically only scan inside for airspeed and outside for centerline and aim point. It is a quick repetitive switch between the two.

You need to develop the visual skill to see where you aircraft is flying to / aiming to. The easiest way is to imagine a spit mark on your cockpit windshield: on a proper final approach pitch, where your visual glance towards your aim point passes through the windshield, make a spit mark. Keep this mark on your aim point. The spit mark becomes your indicator iwhether you are low on energy or high on energy. If you are low on energy, the spit mark will come short of the aim point, if you are high on energy, the spit mark will go beyond your aim point. Once you have developped this perception, you will intuitively realise what your aircraft is doing.

When I went to flight school, my IP indeed made me do physical spitmarks on the single engine prop windshield. Over time my brain developed the viewing technique so I didn't need the physical spitmark anymore, but I still saw where my aircraft was pointing to. An insect mark on the windshield can also do the job by the way.

This spit mark is your best indicator for pitch in the last 200ft, it has a much better resolution than the PFD, and will help you to use only very slight corrections to keep your aircraft flying towards the aim point. And with that you will find it easy to always keep the same repetitive pitch in 50ft, even once you manage with only an imagined spit mark.

With this you will develop the perception of how you are approaching the runway. Now fly it to the runway, in about 25ft break the rate of descent, and now look at the runway end (!) to visually judge your sink rate, and then modulate back pressure on the stick. Often you might need to relax back pressure a bit to let the aircraft settle. I repeat, you always need to touch down nose up, no exception to this ever, but you might need to have a bit less nose up than what you needed to initially break the rate of descent.

My explanations might be hard to grasp at first, but please try some chair flying to understand what I mean. It is not easy to describe in written words. May be other contributers can complement or add to what I have written.

And of course, a heavy A321 needs more engine energy than a light A319, so may be a slightly later power cut.

I’m probably not as experienced as the majority of those who will give you a response here

I’ve got just over 2000 hours on the bus in ~3.5 years in the job

I remember the feeling of being new on the jet and every landing feeling like an event/jump into the unknown.

I never experienced any real issues with landing during training but even when it went ‘well’ I could not explain well other than I did get quite confused when things went ‘wrong’- a float or what I perceived as a firmer than expected/desired touchdown.

I certainly struggled with consistency and would think quite a bit about different techniques, I heard about the 50ft ‘double flare’ and implemented it for a while but it didn’t stick with me as it seemed to create more issues than it solved; I floated plenty using it even if 1/5 would be buttery smooth and got praise and when you are landing into a place with a short TDZ or with a tailwind it’s downright dangerous

I can’t speak for others but can say confidently that experience solves plenty, focus on nailing the basics, no matter what else you read the FCTM/FCOM technique is absolutely where your head should be at for landing, don’t accept deviations and stick to this whilst you are still gaining exposure. All of the other things you have mentioned about what you’ve seen online about others pumping the stick or anything else during the flare will be coming from more experienced operators and comes more naturally when you have got more time in the seat- it’s not something you need to worry about replicating, it will come once you feel more comfortable.

when you have a bad landing the most important thing will be to analyse why and get feedback from the line captain if you can’t tell, more often than not they will have great insight and awareness into what went wrong there that you’ll lack early on. They’ll also likely make you feel more confident and tell you they’ve been there

in a few years you won’t have to think about it and when you have a bad one you’ll shrug it off because you know 9/10 are acceptable

if you are really struggling speak to your company or try and fly with more trainers, you need confidence in this situation and the last thing you want is a bad experience that will set you back months and stay with you

I was cautioned by trainers during LT not to adapt the ‘aircraft carrier’ technique you’ll see from line captains-a last minute dramatic snatch, it’s always quite impressive to witness it but there’s so little room for error it’s also pretty uncomfortable

Easy way to write the gear off on an A321neo

Just one extra thing I'll add to the advise here is that a consistent seat position is vital. When I first started on the thing, after training my landings Went back to being a bit inconsistent and i couldn't work out why. I eventually realised that I wasn't being disciplined with my seating position. Just aligning the balls is not enough and I needed another reference to make sure I nail it every Time. I personally don't like the recommend seating position that Airbus gives its way too high but that's just me.

This is all great advice. I would also add that as an experienced A340 FO back in about 2005 I flew a trip LHR-HKG-SYD as one of 2 support FO's to help a bloody ex Sea Harrier pilot sort his landings out. By the end he was golden obvs but sometimes things take a little longer. Don't stress but do work on it.

Not sure if this reads across from Boeing, but here goes. If you're not sure how to do something, ask yourself how the ac would do it with automatics engaged.

So, landing (auto) on my type (75/76). It's really simple - the ac points itself down the GS, controlling speed with power. At a set height (45') the ac starts the flare, at another set height (25') idle thrust, keep running straight and the ac will land on the main wheels down the centre line. If you're doing this manually the numbers can be smaller eg without a crazy wind or weight I would use the cadence 50, 40, 30, flare, 20 and then smoothly reduce thr to achieve idle by touchdown. Spookily this is what the FCTM tells you to do. I don't play with the landing attitude to try to achieve a 'smooth' touchdown - if you've selected the correct attitude in the flare then it will land on the main wheels at a decent RoD (just the derotation to manage now!)

Ultimately, if you're in the right place at the right speed, running straight, on the CL in the correct landing attitude, with the power at idle, it will land. It has to - gravity always wins.

Hth. Good luck

Very good advice.

I use the balls to adjust, but in combination with the glareshield: I position myself that my view-line can read the instruments without being obstructed by the glareshield, but also that my view-line can see the top of the glareshield.

What do I mean by that: my vision line is exactly parallel to the glareshields plane (on top - under the windshield) when looking at the glareshields front edge. Hope it is clear what I mean.

I'm a new-ish Airbus Pilot. A lot of great advice has been given. So I'll add my piece.

Firstly, a good landing starts with a good approach, so assuming a 3-degree glideslope, you're looking for a V/S for 700fpm over the runway threshold. If you're a little high or low on the PAPI's, while temping correct this by "diving" or "shallowing off". I would accept this for what it is and continue as this is where destabilisation occurs.

Secondly, you could be landing in Flap 3, Flap Full, crosswind/tailwind etc, so while 30ft RA is a good datum height to initiate a flare. It can lead to floating or a hard touchdown depending on conditions and configuration. So another good way we got taught is to wait for the "visual closure rate". This is when the runway comes into view rapidly around 30-20ft RA. This helps to judge the flare massively as it accounts for different configs, conditions and weights of the aircraft. Some days you have a tailwind so you may see the closure rate come earlier than expected, so as a result you will flare earlier, opposite for a strong headwind etc. As you initiate the flare close the thrust levers and look towards the end of the runway rather than the touchdown zone markings. Don't forget you're flying the aircraft onto the ground as this is a big jet, it's not designed to be stalled onto the ground so no need to "keep it flying" as you still need to land within the touchzone, otherwise it's a go around! Also never push forward on the stick if you find yourself floating. Just ease the back pressure a tad and it'll settle down.

Lastly, your flare should be one continuous movement on the stick, not 2 "yanks". It should be a timely flare and is a fully visual manoeuvre. Continue actively controlling​ the closure rate to touchdown, actively maintaining​ the centreline using roll (bank),​ and finally rudder​ smoothly to align​ the aircraft​ heading with the runway​ axis. I think over-reliance on the RAD ALT calls for the flare should be avoided as a primary reference but more of a secondary reference to back up the height that you decided to flare.​ I find landing an A320 like this makes life much easier, as a result I've done some great landings (Of course I've had my fair share of firm ones too! Comes with the job).

Bottom line, the flare is a visual, timely manoeuvre with reference to visual cues, avoid using the RAD ALT as a primary guide, avoid a "2-step flare" and no need to overthink it!

Hope this helps. Happy landings!

I 100% agree every single word. Very nice explanation :)

You have many years to finesse your landing ability and develop the skills to do so. As a relatively inexperienced pilot your aim should solely be to deliver the aircraft to the TDZ and on the centreline without too much back ache. Airbus guidance on this will help you to achieve it, as will the advice here, but most importantly figure out what works for you and what doesn't, when to flare, what the wind is doing, what the weight of the aircraft is. All of those things will help you to better understand the plane and adjust when necessary.

I struggle a bit to fly properly to the aiming point. I fly 319,320 and sometimes 321. I see that when I start flying to the aiming point, so my scan is as you say below 200’, I tend to drift slightly low. Some people say to look already to the far because in this way I can perceive the attitude and see if the runway shape is changing. Any advice?

Probably ground effect making the nose heavy therefore keep the aiming point fixed and not moving up the windscreen.

Ok, so in principle you see where your aircraft is traveling / aiming to. That is already a good basis!

So let's go into detail how to read what you see. What I describe is valid for all variants, 319, 320, 321, NEO, CEO, with or withour sharklets, just all of them. The difference in the variants is only in the proper moment of the power cut: higher weight, no sharklets (=more drag), NEO (bigger front surface = more drag) need slightly later power cut.

In clean lab conditions, if you had found a stable power setting and a stable pitch during approach, you would just not make any control inputs and the aircraft would still continue to fly towards the aim point.

However, clean lab conditions we usually don't have. Winds fluctuate, temperature over the runway might change air density, and we also hardly manage to find this perfect ultra-precise pitch and thrust setting.

So it is important to read the aircrafts behaviour. We do so during approch with the help of the instruments: air speed indicator and LOC/GS diamonds and possibly FD bars.

Now under 200 ft, when you start to visually fly the aircraft towards your intended point of touchdown (which is your aim point): how to read the aircrafts behaviour now?
Thrust still via airspeed indicator, no change there compared to further out in the approach.

However, while in principle maintaining the pitch you had during final approach (the one with final flap setting and vApp), you now with this pitch imagine the spit mark on your windshield, which is the point where your visual glance towards the aim point goes through the windshield.

Keep this spit mark on your aim point, always, no exception to this principle!

Now if you tend to come low, that shows as the spit mark drifting towards before your intended aim point: in other words if you look towards the runway through your spitmark, you don't look at your aim point but somewhere before on the runway, closer to you.

There can be 2 reasons for that:

1. A sign of too low thrust, and you hold airspeed by subconciously slighly reducing pitch (which positions the spit mark away from the aim point, direction towards you). The solution is to keep your spit mark on the aim point, and monitor airspeed trend and adapt thrust accordingly.
2. A sign of an unwanted pitch down through nervousness on the stick, your airspeed might now slowly increase and you might now create a low energy situation by reducing thrust. Also in this scenario the solution is to keep your spit mark on the aim point!

So you see, in both scenarios you must keep your spit mark on the aim point. No exception to that ever! Imagine the runway as a pitch indication, where the needle is your spitmark, and the aim point on the runway is the target pitch. If your spitmarks points beyond the aim point, your pitch is too high, if your spitmark points before the aim point, your pitch is too low. So keep a proper pitch by keeping the spitmark on your aim point, and maintain proper airspeed with thrust (if not using ATHR).

And I disagree strongly with some of your colleagues: you should only start looking towards the runway end once you have started the flare, and not before! Before the flare you look at your aim point and your airspeed indicator. Only once you flare you look at the runway end to modulate the sinkrate (no need to check airspeed anymore once power was cut).

One last thing: do not overcontrol on the stick, don't mix a drink with it, make calm and well planned inputs. Imagine the fly-by-wire system has a low-pass filter and lets only slow inputs through, but mixing-like inputs are not transferred to the flight control computers. That is where aim point flying helps to only make minor inputs!

Hope it helps! And do not stress, it is a skill, not just knowledge, meaning it needs practice and experience to apply what I have described.

A follow on highlighted to me is NB the "power cut" does nothing until the levers pass the (low) power approach power level i.e. the first 50%? 75% of the movement does nothing - which is why a manual thrust approach needs a "later" cut than ATHR since the thrust reduction starts straight away.

Its a small factor, but as in the quote, there is an exercise in judging the various factors as exactly when to power cut...

Just wanted to share something I encountered today that ties into the flare technique discussion.

I’m fairly new on the Airbus, with a little under 1,000 hours on type. Today, flying an approach into a reportedly steady 20-knot headwind in CONF 3 on an A321N, I experienced something I’d never seen before and, honestly, it scared me a bit.

Everything was stable considering the conditions. Crossing the threshold at about 50 ft, we had roughly a 700 fpm descent rate. My eyes were already transitioning down the runway when just below 40 ft, the wind suddenly dropped.

The aircraft sank immediately, so I started initiating the flare earlier than usual, but to little effect. There was almost no noticeable response to my inputs, neither an increase in pitch nor a reduction in the rate of descent. By touchdown … which was firm, I was at full aft sidestick, pitch had increased to around 6 degrees, and thrust wasn’t brought back to idle until main gear touchdown.

For a moment, it genuinely felt like I was just along for the ride.

After vacating the runway, I looked at the skipper in disbelief. He actually commended me for not retarding the thrust earlier and said there realistically wasn’t much more I could have done. He said he could see me hauling the stick back trying to arrest the sink.

I was honestly pretty shocked by how little authority it felt like I had.

A go-around would technically have been an option, but realistically it probably still would have resulted in a similarly firm touchdown by the time it was initiated.

At our company, we have a strict “autothrust always on” policy, so manually adding thrust wasn’t really an option. In conditions like these, though, a human probably would have reacted faster than the automation.

What other options are there in this situation? I already had a few knots of VAPP added in there, maybe even more? Would momentarily selecting MCT have helped by getting the engines spooled up sooner?

Curious to hear others’ thoughts and experiences.

Probably due to the ATHR logic below 150 FT RA. REFER FCOM DSC22-30-50-ATHR MODES-SPEED/MACH MODE: it states " BELOW 150FT RA the ATHR is less responsive to speed variations...." it is possible that the aircraft was maintaining V TARGET commensurate with the head winds and along the way as the wind reduces the thrust also reduced, but crossing 150 FT RA since the ATHR is less responsive to thrust variations, the speed or speed trend was nearing or below your VAPP Hence, the aircraft was at a lower energy to arrest your sink rate properly. However the late thrust retardation n would have maintained enough momentum for a while thus preventing a firmer landing. And also you said you needed a full aft sidestick, I'm just curious, did you check the load report to see what your pitch was on landing, especially since you mentioned it was CONFIG 3 landing ?

I doubt very much that MCT would have been wise here. Apart from anything else, you'd be throwing the captain out of the loop entirely.

If you wanted finer control over the engines, manual thrust is the answer. Why does your airline forbid it?

We didn’t get the reports, though in hindsight they would’ve been interesting to see. There was no pitch callout or printer running after landing, so everything appeared to be within limits. The captain did mention that pitch was sitting just above the 5-degree line during touchdown, so there’s that.

Another contributing factor to the slow pitch response could have been a more forward CG than usual. We had an MEL restricting flammable cargo in the aft compartment, so we decided to load everything in the front. I believe it was around 18% when I calculated the landing performance.

As for manual thrust being prohibited, it’s apparently for safety-related reasons. I’m not familiar with the specific incident myself, but I’ve heard the restriction was added after a few hard landings years back caused by pilot error. Way to ruin it for everyone…

1. The Pitch Call out wouldn't have come unless it was an aggressive change in pitch, i.e., nearing the pitch limit mark

2. Not sure of your company's load report generation SOP, but unless it is preprogrammed to generate a load report post a threshold G or VRTA the load report wouldn't have come anyway. And a load report that requires a TECHINCAL inspection is well above 2G. So it's always a good idea to print the load report when in doubt and analyze your pitch change rate and the VRTA yourself. The SKIPPER might have said it's at 5 degrees when landing, which would be probably 100% correct. But since you had held the full AFT sidestick, which again is unnatural during flare in a flyby wire, unless some aggressive maneuverer is required, such as GPWS PULL UP or WINDSHEAR. In my company, the flight data monitoring has set the first upper limit of pitch(PITCH HIGH ON TOUCHDOWN) during landing on an A321 at 7 degrees for CONFIG 3. Also, remember the sidestick is soft or easy to handle in pitch control to a certain AFT or FWD movement post that the internal tension resists or adds a feel that makes the movement stiff, and to add full AFT sidestick requires you to go beyond this added feel.

3. The FWD CG shouldn't have any noticeable effect on your pitch rate in a fly-by-wire aircraft like the A320 family, that too in NORMAL LAW, unless loaded incorrectly and well beyond the margins, as the THS compensates for this. Note: read:- Rotation mode, activated during take off beyond 70knts ETC till flight mode engages, although this does not hold for flare, but shows Airbus is managed well in terms of CG.

4. I forgot to mention in my previous comment: moving the thrust levers to MCT momentarily during landing to soften a landing due what is perceived as lack of pitch authority is a violation of Airbus SOP. But say if it was done, during flare, where assuming you had pitch of 6 degrees and N1 is around 50-ish % the movement to MCT will do what? take ATHR out of the logic? Assuming the thrust has even time to react at flare height, now thrust will follow your TLA (doughnut), And due to an underslung engines, the thrust increase will vector a nose-up pitch . You are already a 6 degrees pitch and with AFT sidestick, no margin, and this will either lead you close to a tail strike or a pilot induced oscillation where the worst would be due intuition(perceived nose up due thrust increase) you input a sidestick release or worst a nose down pitch

Fly the output, don’t overthink it.

Well put thewiseelderman.
I've flown the A319/20/21/330 CEO and NEO and I fly them all the same.
The inputs to do this, do vary slightly between variants, but it is the aircraft's reaction that I'm interested in.

Indeed. It is helpful to have a firm grasp of the fundamentals (this is what the FCTM and FCOM are for) and to try and replicate that on every occasion

my company is very good at breaking down the landing process into stages to create as consistent an output as possible for every occasion but it really is just about nailing the fundamentals and not accepting deviations

if you’re chasing a ‘greaser’ that’s an entirely different story and shouldn’t be on the top of your mind as a professional aviator- ignorewhat the uninformed behind the FD door say, including the crew. In fact the crew are perhaps the worst judges of a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ landing.

I think the OP just needs reassurance there is nothing unusual in his/her performance.

Whenver someone refers to a book how to land an aircraft I feel like:... :ugh:

Unless you only intend to fly perfect days, no landing is identical to another. Fly the output, I liked that! There is a lot of practice in it to do it consistently well.

Firm landings are fine, especially in the wet/dry snow and in gusty conditions. I never once fixated on the TDZ, when landing an A319, 320, 321, or 330. (330 is usually much simpler, btw, with ground effect helping soften the blow). Just adjust the scan to 150-200 feet. Keep her coming down. Look up the runway more and more, and gently close the Thrust Levers at 20-30 feet while keeping her straight or correcting the drift. Do not keep pulling back, just relax the back sidestick pressure at 5-10 feet, and let her settle. Anticipate using Full or Idle reverse thrust, and brake accordingly. It took me about 4 months on the line to feel confident when landing, and for the next 15 years I can say I did not make an unsafe landing. Plenty of firm ones though.

Previous landing experiences on the F-27 and Shed were a different matter altogether!

not really, FCTM exist for a reason. PERF calcs are designed to land in a specific repeatable pattern (within TDZ at a certain speed)

If you try to land a jet like your SEP/MEP from training you’re likely to get into trouble

the number of ignorant comments out there that fixate on ‘butter’ landings whilst the jet has floated halfway down the runway or you see some American cowboys aiming for the numbers in a commercial jet show that many don’t understand the theory behind landing these kind of aircraft and hence low hours people can get lost. If you apply what your manuals say you’re likely to get a consistent output. The refinement of adaptation to real world conditions comes with experience